Hellbound After All?

NOT SO FAST: VATICAN SAYS POPE FRANCIS GOT IT WRONG, ATHEISTS DO GO TO HELL

Given that the Washington Times is published by a rival religious organization, the Unification Church (founded by the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, the late Korean messiah), one is wise to approach its reporting on matters spiritual with caution. However, the basic facts in the Washington Times story came from the U.P.I. wire, and they have also appeared in secular news outlets throughout the English-speaking world, including the U.K. Independent, Canada’s National Post, and the Sunshine Coast Daily, of Queensland, Australia.

Clearly, this latest development raises two questions:

1. First, just who the heck is infallible around here, Pope Francis—the Vicar of Christ, Bishop of Rome, and Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church—or “the Rev. Thomas Rosica, a Vatican spokesman”?

2. Am I going to hell or not?

As readers of a recent blog post may recall, I was touched by the Pope’s apparent declaration that morally well-behaved nonbelievers (such as, I hope, myself) are just as worthy of God’s beneficence as are morally well-behaved believers—that God, being good, does not punish nice, otherwise inoffending people simply for not kowtowing to Him. Why was I touched? Well, not because I believe in God. (I don’t.) And not because I was relieved to have it on good authority that I’m probably going to Heaven. (I’m not going anywhere, until such time, hopefully not too soon, as I go nowhere.) I was touched because the spirit of the Pope’s homily was one of kindness, tolerance, humanity, and common sense. I was touched because (putting aside questions of existence or nonexistence) the God that the Pope worships is not a cruel, vain, surpassingly egomaniacal tyrant.

However: Not so fast!

According to Father Rosica, the “Vatican spokesman,” the real truth is that

all salvation comes from Christ, the Head, through the Church which is his body. Hence they cannot be saved who, knowing the Church as founded by Christ and necessary for salvation, would refuse to enter her or remain in her.

In other words, “I’m talking about you, Hertzberg. I hope you like high temperatures.”

For one thing, there’s a high weasel factor at work here. In that “refuse to enter” passage, Rosica is quoting from the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Compendium is a kind of lawbook, and, as such, it has its share of loopholes. I think I can spot one here. To deserve eternal damnation, you have to do more than just “refuse to enter” the Catholic Church. You also have to “know” that being a Catholic is “necessary for salvation.” But knowing isn’t the same as hearing. I’ve heard that Obama is a Muslim, but I don’t know that he is. You can know about something, but if you’re sure it’s nonsense you can’t know it. A technical quibble, but I figure it might get me off on appeal.

Another Rosica loophole I could maybe slip through:

A non-Christian may reject a Christian’s presentation of the gospel of Christ. That however, does not necessarily mean that the person has truly rejected Christ and God. Rejection of Christianity may not mean the rejection of Christ. For if a given individual rejects the Christianity brought to him through the Church’s preaching, even then we are still never in any position to decide whether this rejection as it exists in the concrete signifies a grave fault or an act of faithfulness to one’s own conscience. We can never say with ultimate certainty whether a non-Christian who has rejected Christianity and who, in spite of a certain encounter with Christianity, does not become a Christian, is still following the temporary path mapped out for his own salvation which is leading him to an encounter with God, or whether he has now entered upon the way of perdition.

The language is kind of murky, but this sounds to me like an admission that “faithfulness to one’s own conscience” takes precedence over “the Church’s preaching.” In which case the Pope is right (and, in this instance, the Catechism is wrong). Also, as long as I steer clear of “grave faults” other than having heretical religious opinions, I should be O.K. come Judgment Day.

So there’s reasonable doubt about the widely reported assumption that Rosica “walked back” the Pope’s homily.

There’s also some question about the characterization of Rosica as a “Vatican spokesman.”

Rosica is a well-connected priest who served on the staff of the Vatican’s press operation for a month during the transition from Benedict XVI to Francis. But his “explanatory note” was issued from Toronto, not Rome. It was promulgated not by the Holy See Press Office or by an official organ like Vatican Radio or L’Osservatorre Romano but by ZENIT, which describes itself as an “nonprofit news agency” that is “staffed by a team of professionals and volunteers who are convinced that the extraordinary wisdom of the Pontiff and the Catholic Church can nourish hope, and assist all of humanity to find truth, justice and beauty.”

Although ZENIT also describes itself as “independent,” it is in fact controlled by the right-wing Legionaries of Christ, whose late founder, Marcial Maciel Degollado, was eventually exposed as a sex and child abuser on an epic scale. Last year, ZENIT’s publisher was forced out for resisting pressures from the Legion, after which the agency’s six main editors promptly resigned.

Of course, none of this proves that Father Rosica’s “explanation” has nothing to do with a supposed decision by “the Vatican” to “walk back” the new Pope’s homily and everything to do with a quiet intra-Church struggle between anti-Vatican II diehards and clerics who prefer John XXIII’s (and Francis’s) generosity of spirit. But it is interestingly suggestive, isn’t it?

Francis’s first three months on the job have been encouraging. Among those who are hoping for the best is Hans Küng, the great eighty-five-year-old rebel priest and theologian. Last month, he wrote:

It is astonishing how, from the first minute of his election, Pope Francis chose a new style: unlike his predecessor, no miter with gold and jewels, no ermine-trimmed cape, no made-to-measure red shoes and headwear, no magnificent throne.

Astonishing, too, that the new pope deliberately abstains from solemn gestures and high-flown rhetoric and speaks in the language of the people.

And finally it is astonishing how the new pope emphasizes his humanity: He asked for the prayers of the people before he gave them his blessing; settled his own hotel bill like anybody else; showed his friendliness to the cardinals in the coach, in their shared residence, at the official goodbye; washed the feet of young prisoners, including those of a young Muslim woman. A pope who demonstrates that he is a man with his feet on the ground.

The former Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s choice of a name was another hopeful sign. Calling himself Francis was an act of humble audacity, or audacious humility: he is the first Pope in more than a millennium to pick a name that doesn’t require a Roman numeral, because none of his predecessors used it. And the name itself, echoing Francis of Assisi, is a byword for poverty, simplicity, and kindness. A couple of weeks ago, in a letter to an old friend, the Pope explained why he has been reluctant to leave the relatively modest group residence where he and the other Cardinals stayed during the conclave that elected him. “I didn’t want to go and live in the apostolic palace,” he wrote. “I’m trying to stay the same and to act as I did in Buenos Aires because if you change at my age you just look ridiculous.”

Of course, the question is whether the changes to come will go beyond personal style and charm. For the time being I’m inclined to give Pope Francis the benefit of the doubt. After all, that’s what he’s given me.

Photograph by Franco Origlia/Getty Images

Hendrik Hertzberg is a senior editor and staff writer at The New Yorker. He regularly blogs about politics.